Slider1
Slider2
Slider3
Slider4
previous arrow
next arrow

Archive June 23, 2025

Belgium’s Mertens Announces Retirement From Football

Dries Mertens, a former Belgium international, announced that he would retire from football at the end of this month. His contract with Galatasaray is scheduled to expire at the end of this month.

The 38-year-old said he was hanging up his boots in a video that was posted on social media on Sunday but that Marek Hamsik, his former Napoli teammate, would play in an exhibition game in July.

Mertens has the all-time best goalscorer record at 148 against Napoli.

Before moving to Galatasaray, where he won three consecutive Turkish Super Lig titles in 2022, he won two Italian Cups while there.

READ MORE: Tom Aspinall New Heavyweight Champion, Jon Jones Retires From UFC

What the US and Israel really want from Iran

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed in his 2002 testimony to the US Congress that an invasion of Iraq was necessary to end the “war on terror” and stop Iraq and terrorist organizations from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. He added that the conflict would be brief, and that it would elicit a new era of Western-friendly democracy, not just in Iraq but throughout the region, including Iran. The proclamation was not accurate.

Prior to the invasion of 2003, many experts and officials already knew that Saddam Hussein’s regime lacked al-Qaeda and had no weapons of mass destruction. Unavoidable suffering, insecurities, insecurity, chaos, and the breakdown of government were all inevitable outcomes of the war. And that is what transpired. Today, Iraq is at best a fragile nation with significant political and economic challenges.

Many analysts eluded commenting on how the two allies allegedly failed to learn from the Iraq war and are now making the same mistakes in Iran after Israel and then the US attacked it earlier this month. If the 2003 invasion had had the objectives of halting the proliferation of WMDs and establishing democracy in mind, these analyses would have been accurate. They weren’t, though.

The US and Israel’s goal in the war was an Iraq that wouldn’t impede the Israeli-occupied Palestinians’ claim to sovereignty and its role as a representative of US imperial power in the area. In Iran today, this is also the desired outcome.

The assertions that Iran was “on the verge of” developing nuclear weapons have no justification, just as the claims about Iraq’s weapons-of- mass destruction have been proven to be completely false. No concrete proof has been presented that Tehran was actually developing nuclear weapons. Instead, lies and hypocrisy have been displayed in a way that is unmatched.

Two nuclear powers are engaged in illegal “pre-emptive” aggression under the guise of stopping nuclear proliferation, one of which stands out as the only state in history to have used a nuclear weapon not once but twice. The other, who refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has a mass-murder-suicide-style nuclear doctrine, is at this situation.

Israel and the US are obviously not interested in Iran’s nuclear program. They want Iran to become a regional power, which is why regime change has already been discussed in the media.

US Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz have called for the sacking of Iran’s government in addition to numerous statements from Netanyahu, Israeli defense minister Israel Katz, and other Israeli officials. US President Donald Trump posted a message on social media on Sunday to join the calls for a change in Iran’s regime.

Iranians are now being urged to “stand up” and fight for their “freedom.” However, Israel and the US don’t want Iran to have freedom and democracy. Why? Because of the fact that a free and democratic Iran would reject the brutalities of a colonial-state project in its vicinity.

They would prefer any other political force to do their bidding, such as the Pahlavi dynasty, which was a violent, tyrannical monarchy that was once the Pahlavi dynasty, which overcame its demise in a popular revolution in 1979.

Israel and the US would prefer a destabilized, fragmented, weak, chaotic, and divided Iran, which would be ruined by a civil war. That would serve their purposes, just as a war-torn Iraq did.

The political elites in Israel and the US have jointly supported a well-established policy objective since the 1990s, which is to weaken regional powers in the Middle East and cause instability through subversion and aggression.

This strategy of attacking Middle Eastern states was described in a policy document called Clean Break, which was written by former US Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle and other neoconservatives in 1996.

Perle and al simply capitalized on the well-known imperial strategy of creating division and chaos to facilitate imperial dominance.

However, there are risks in this approach. A weakened or dispersed Iranian state can result in the same dynamics as the demise of the Iraqi state opened the door to violent non-state actors and helped Iran strengthen its position as a regional power challenging US-Israeli interests.

The US and Israel’s actions are encouraging more nations to pursue nuclear weapons on a more global scale. Nuclear weapons are a necessity to acquire just to prevent such attacks, which states are learning from the US-Israeli aggression against Iran. In other words, this war is likely going to cause more proliferation, not less.

As long as the chaos and destruction it causes in the area allows it to accomplish its strategic objective of ending all resistance to its settler colonization project, the Israeli state doesn’t seem concerned about proliferation. In a nutshell, Israel will do anything to bring the entire region to its knees in order to do so. Because it is essentially free to bear the cost of regional instability.

In contrast, chaos in the Middle East directly affects US interests. In the short run, a dysfunctional Iraq or weakened Iran may be beneficial to the US, but instability could impair its grander plans to control global energy markets&nbsp and halt China.

The unjustified aggression will have a ripple effect on the rest of the world, just as it did following Iraq’s invasion in 2003.

Some European nations have appeared to support the attack despite the numerous negative economic effects they may experience as a result of that war, which has had a brutal, decades-long impact on the global response to the US-Israeli aggression against Iran.

This complacency with imperial violence must end if governments truly want to make the world a safer place. They have come to the sobering conclusion that the US and Israel, thanks to their racist colonial designs, cause chaos and destruction.

US imperialism is an unjustifiable effort to rob people of their resources, dignity, and sovereignty, while the Israeli settler colonial project is an unjustifiable one of displacement, expulsion, and genocide.

The world needs to press Israel to abandon its settler colonial project and establish a decolonial relationship with the Palestinians in a decolonized Palestine, as well as to compel the US to let its citizens live in freedom and sovereignty.

Only this will prevent unending chaos, instability, suffering, and pain.

US, Israeli strikes on Iran nuclear sites: How big are radiation risks?

Early on Sunday, the United States bombed three Iranian nuclear sites after more than a week of Israeli strikes on Tehran’s military and nuclear sites, stoking concerns about radiation leaks and contamination in Iran and neighbouring countries in the region.

US President Donald Trump said the US strikes “obliterated” key nuclear enrichment facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. So far, no increase in radiation levels has been detected outside the targeted sites.

But the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has warned of chemical contamination inside these facilities. And experts have said that any attack on Iran’s only operating nuclear power plant, Bushehr, could lead to a major radiation crisis.

Here is what we know about the potential of radiation risk and contamination in Iran and the region:

What do we know about the Israeli attack on the Fordow site?

The Israeli army attacked Iran’s Fordow nuclear site a day after it was targeted in US strikes, according to a spokesman for the Qom province crisis management headquarters.

Morteza Heydari provided no further details regarding the attack, but said “no danger is posed to citizens” in the area.

Following the attacks on three nuclear sites, including Fordow, Trump claimed “monumental damage’ to the nuclear sites. “Obliteration is an accurate term!” he posted on his Truth Social platform.

On Monday, Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, said “very significant damage” is expected at the Fordow site. While “no one, including the IAEA, is in a position to have fully assessed the underground damage at Fordow”, he said it is expected to be “very significant”.

That’s because of “the explosive payload utilised and the extreme vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges”, Grossi said at an emergency meeting of the IAEA’s board of governors.

Did the US attacks cause radioactive contamination?

In the aftermath of Sunday’s attack, levels of radioactivity in Iran and nearby countries are normal, confirmed their governments and the IAEA, which noted that no off-site radiation has been reported.

In a statement on Sunday, the IAEA said that the Isfahan site, which was previously also struck by Israel, had sustained additional damage after the US strikes.

The IAEA said that any radioactive contamination caused at Isfahan is limited to the buildings that were damaged or destroyed.

“The facilities targeted today either contained no nuclear material or small quantities of natural or low-enriched uranium, meaning any radioactive contamination is limited to the buildings that were damaged or destroyed,” the agency said.

Grossi, the IAEA chief, said that the US strikes on Isfahan hit several buildings, including some “related to the uranium conversion process” while a fuel enrichment plant was hit at Natanz.

Grossi said IAEA inspectors stand ready to check the targeted facilities “when agreed with Iran”.

The IAEA monitors and reports nuclear activities of Iran through inspections, monitoring equipment, environmental sampling, and satellite imagery, according to a UN website news release.

Why did radiation remain at normal levels?

There are multiple possible reasons why the radiation has stayed at normal levels.

One is that Iran had moved away its nuclear infrastructure in anticipation of an earlier Israeli strike. Mahdi Mohammadi, an adviser to Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said earlier that Iran had moved its nuclear infrastructure from Fordow in anticipation of an attack.

So far, only enrichment sites, where uranium is enriched to make atomic bombs, have been hit.

At enrichment sites, uranium exists in gaseous form, which combines with fluoride gas to form uranium hexafluoride. This is spun around in centrifuges to increase the amounts of uranium-235, the isotope that can support nuclear fission chain reactions.

Hence, if struck, uranium hexafluoride might leak out of enrichment sites. The fluoride gas is deadly when inhaled and can be corrosive to the skin.

Moreover, enrichment facilities are also fortified underground and buried hundreds of metres deep, making them difficult to damage and hence lessening radiation risks.

On the other hand, nuclear reactors primarily use uranium. In a nuclear reactor, the fission chain reaction needs to take place within a fraction of a second, leading to a nuclear explosion from the tremendous amount of energy released. Typically, 90 percent enrichment is needed to make an atomic bomb.

Why are experts warning against attacking the Bushehr plant?

Concerns have particularly been raised against attacks on the Bushehr nuclear site, with the IAEA chief warning of a disaster if the plant located at Iran’s Gulf Coast is hit.

Grossi said on Thursday that a direct hit to Bushehr, which is monitored by the IAEA, would result in a “very high release of radioactivity to the environment”.

Grossi added that Bushehr contains “thousands of kilogrammes of nuclear material”. In a worst-case scenario, it would require evacuation orders to be issued for areas within several hundred kilometres of the plant, including population centres in other Gulf countries, he said.

The IAEA chief said that a strike on the two lines that supply electricity to Bushehr could cause its reactor core to melt, with dire consequences.

Authorities would need to take protective actions including administering iodine to populations and potentially restricting food supplies, with subsequent radiation monitoring covering distances of several hundred kilometres.

On June 19, the Israeli military said that it had attacked Bushehr, but later said that the announcement was a mistake.

Bushehr, which is located around 750km (465 miles) south of Tehran, is Iran’s only commercial nuclear power plant. It is run by uranium produced in Russia.

Bushehr, home to around 223,504 people, has two large nuclear reactors – one of them still under construction.

“It would be very dangerous if it were hit with a bomb or the cooling systems are interrupted,” Robert Kelly, a former IAEA inspector who has worked in Iraq, South Africa and Libya, told Al Jazeera.

“You might get an accident on the scale of Fukushima, where the reactor would melt down inside its building and maybe release small amounts of gas to the environment,” Kelly said.

In March 2011, a magnitude 9 earthquake and tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling systems of three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, located in Okuma on Japan’s east coast. Radioactive material was released from the site, leading to tens of thousands of people being evacuated.

A UN report deems Fukushima the largest civilian nuclear accident since that in Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986.

“If somebody attacks the town of Bushehr, it may not be the reactor. So when people are saying they’re attacking Bushehr or attacking the reactor of Bushehr, it could be the one that’s not finished yet,” Kelly said.

“I think the Russians would have a lot to say about someone attacking the facility that they already built and the one that’s worth about $7bn that isn’t finished yet. I think Israel has to take the Russians into account in this case, too.”

Russian state news agency RIA reported that the head of Russia’s nuclear energy corporation Rosatom, Alexei Likhachev, warned:  “If there is a strike on the operational first power unit, it will be a catastrophe comparable to Chernobyl.”

Why are Gulf States worried?

A strike on Bushehr would contaminate a critical source of desalinated potable water for Gulf countries, including Qatar.

Qatar and Bahrain are 100 percent reliant on desalinated water for drinking water. All of Bahrain’s groundwater is saved for contingency plans.

In March, Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani said during an interview with US media personality Tucker Carlson that Qatar had conducted simulations of an attack on Bushehr. The Qatari PM revealed that an attack on the plant would leave the Gulf entirely contaminated and Qatar would “run out of water in three days”.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is reliant on desalinated water, which accounts for more than 80 percent of its drinking water.

In Saudi Arabia, around 50 percent of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics.

While countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Oman have access to other water sources, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait do not have other options.

Kelly said that the nuclear reactors are extremely tough and are designed to melt down inside their containment in certain accident situations.

“The idea that very much of the material inside is going to get out is actually pretty small, so I think people are maybe obsessing too much,” he said.

‘I’ve tried every Skin Rocks product and this is what’s worth your money’

Skin Rocks is the skincare brand founded by Caroline Hirons, and it has become a huge hit – including with our beauty editor. Here’s her honest review of every product…

Skin Rocks is the skincare brand founded by influencer Caroline Hirons(Image: Laura Mulley)

Anyone even moderately interested in beauty will probably have heard of skincare super-influencer and author Caroline Hirons – and therefore also know about her own brand, Skin Rocks. Shunning gimmicks and trends and instead focusing on brilliant formulas with clinically proven results with no-nonsense instructions, Skin Rocks quickly became hugely popular with beauty fans – including myself.

As my job as Reach’s Beauty and Wellness Editor, I’ve been lucky enough to try and review every product from Skin Rocks, often before they hit the shelves, from cleansers through to the latest launch, The Light Moisturiser, so I know which are really worth shouting about. Spoiler alert: I’ve never used a Skin Rocks product I didn’t like – they’re expertly formulated, never irritate my skin, and are well packaged – but here are the products that I would rebuy…

READ MORE: Caroline Hirons on ‘utter filth’ beauty trend and the one product teens should avoid

READ MORE: ‘I saved over £200 by swapping my pricey skincare for this Boots K-beauty brand’

Skin Rocks' products
Laura has tested all of Skin Rocks’ products(Image: Laura Mulley)

Pros

  • Really well formulated: they’re very effective but never pill or irritate the skin
  • Packaging looks and feels great, and is clear to understand, with notes about who it’ll suit (and who it won’t), and handy guides on the lids showing how much to use
  • Clinically proven results
  • Lots of the products are refillable, with refills costing less
  • Lots of the products come in fragranced or fragrance-free options (I always choose fragrance-free)

Cons

  • It’s not the cheapest
  • Bottles are made of glass and are heavy (good for recycling, less good for travelling)

Skin Rocks products review

Skin Rocks The Cleansing Balm, £55 here

Laura holding Skin Rocks The Cleansing Balm
Caroline is known for loving using cleansing balms(Image: Laura Mulley)

As a vocal advocate for double cleansing since the beginning (before Skin Rocks, Caroline had created the two-in-one Double Cleanse with PIXI), it was only a matter of time before she brought out her own cleansing balm – and it’ll come as no surprise to learn that it’s truly one of the best I’ve ever tried. It melts into the skin, breaks down make-up and SPF easily, and emulsifies away quickly with water and a flannel, leaving skin feeling conditioned but absolutely no oily residue left behind.

Despite being one of my all-time favourites, the only reason why I wouldn’t regularly buy this at the moment is that, on the advice of top facialist Teresa Tarmey, I’m avoiding any cleanser that contains oils in an attempt to battle my persistent blemishes.

There are also a few high street cleansing balms that I love and are cheaper, namely Versed Day Dissolve Cleansing Balm, £16.50, and e.l.f. SKIN Holy Hydration! Makeup Melting Cleansing Balm, £11. However, if you love luxe offerings such as Elemis Pro-Collagen Cleansing Balm (I’ve reviewed the newest cherry scented one here), I encourage you to try this Skin Rocks one next.

Side note: the Skin Rocks flannels are the biggest – and best – I’ve found.

Skin Rocks The Cream Cleanser, from £32 here

Laura holding Two more Skin Rocks cleansers
Two more Skin Rocks cleansers(Image: Laura Mulley)

This was Skin Rocks’ first cleanser, and it’s a real goodie. In the past I’ve never found cream cleansers to be effective enough at removing make-up, but this one is; perhaps not the product for quickly melting multiple layers or stubborn waterproof mascara (try The Cleansing Balm for that), but for everyday make-up and daily grime, especially if your skin is on the drier side, it’s perfect.

Due to popular demand, this and The Gel Cleanser (below) are now available in supersize 250ml tubes.

Skin Rocks The Gel Cleanser, from £39 here

Skin Rocks The Gel Cleanser
This is now available in an extra-large size(Image: Laura Mulley)

This is nothing like the typical foaming, drying gel cleansers you’re probably used to. The formula is so unique – thick, nourishing and rich in moisture-locking glycerin – yet washes completely away as a milky liquid, that it would suit all skin types: young or old, dry or oily, sensitive or not. I squeezed out every drop of this and loved it, and would buy it again.

Skin Rocks The Control Acid, £45 here£49 here

Laura holding Skin Rocks The Control Acid and The Gentle Acid
An exfoliating acid for every skin type(Image: Laura Mulley)

Exfoliating toners are an excellent way to brighten and renew the skin, but they’re easy to overdo, or use one that’s too strong – something I’m definitely guilty of – but I don’t think there’s any risk of that with Skin Rocks’ ones. The Gentle Acid contains AHA and PHA and is your ‘suits everyone’ solution for tackling signs of ageing, whereas The Control Acid contains salicylic acid for declogging congested and spot-prone skin.

While more brilliant, non-irritating formulas, I personally wouldn’t buy these at the moment, as I’m currently cutting back on exfoliants and strong active ingredients in an attempt to let my compromised skin barrier repair itself.

On the rare occasion that I do use one, I can’t be converted away from my favourite BHA formula, Paula’s Choice Skin Perfecting 2% BHA Liquid Exfoliant, £35.

Skin Rocks Retinoid 1, £65 here£75 here

Laura Mulley holding Skin Rocks Retinoid 1 and Retinoid 2
Foolproof retinoid solutions(Image: Laura Mulley)

These were Skin Rocks’ first products, and are a brilliantly formulated – and foolproof – way to introduce skin-renewing and anti-ageing ingredient vitamin A into your skincare routine: start with Retinoid 1, then move on to Retinoid 2. I find that I can use Retinoid 1 every night without any irritation, peeling or flaking; a rarity for me when using this potent ingredient.

Skin Rocks The Eye Cream, £65 here

Laura holding Skin Rocks The Eye Cream
Skin Rocks’ latest launch(Image: Laura Mulley)

I’m fussy about eye creams – lots either irritate my skin, aren’t moisturising enough, or are too rich – but this one is absolutely perfect – immediately silky, smoothing and plumping. I’d happily use this one forever if I could.

Skin Rocks The Moisturiser, £58 here£65 here

Skin Rocks The Moisturiser
Available in ‘regular’ or rich versions(Image: Skin Rocks )

As someone with combination and occasionally blemish-prone skin, I opt for the lighter Moisturiser, and it’s about as near to a perfect face cream as can be. It’s hard to put my finger on exactly why it’s so good, but it layers well with other products, leaves my skin looking and feeling much healthier and, importantly, doesn’t break me out; for me. This is definitely one I would invest in, beaten only ever so slightly in price by my other ‘near perfect’ moisturiser.

Skin Rocks The Light Moisturiser, £58 here

Skin Rocks The Light Moisturiser
Skin Rocks’ latest addition, for combination-to-oily skin(Image: Laura Mulley)

Skin Rocks’ latest launch and aimed at oily, combination or spot-prone skin in particular, this new moisturiser has a gel-cream texture that feels almost like water on the skin: light and refreshing, yet still works effectively to hydrate and support the skin barrier. It’s lovely and cooling in summer.

Skin Rocks The Antioxidant, £70 here

Laura holding Skin Rocks The Antioxidant
A powerful antioxidant blend(Image: Laura Mulley)

Admittedly the one Skin Rocks product I haven’t thoroughly tested, mainly because of the aforementioned stripping of my skincare routine down to basics in a bid to repair its barrier, but I has tried it a few times, and it feels so nice on the skin and gives an instant subtle glow, and I love how it contains more antioxidants than just vitamin C.

In short, I find it hard to find fault with any Skin Rocks products – I totally trust them, and I know that my skin would be happy using only these products. If I had to pick just a few favourites, however, I’d definitely go for the Retinoids, The Moisturiser, and whichever cleanser best suits your skin type and preferred method.

Article continues below

For all of Caroline’s down-to-earth skincare advice in one place, you can buy her books: Skincare: The New Edit, £17, and her latest one, Teen Skincare, £16.99.

England pick suspended Feyi-Waboso for summer tour

Features of Rex
  • 10 Comments

Despite having been suspended for the two-test series against Argentina, Wing Immanuel Feyi-Waboso will travel with England this summer.

The 22-year-old was suspended for three matches after being banned for the “cheat school” program of World Rugby because he shot past France A fly-half Antoine Hastoy with a score of 26-24 on Saturday in the England XV defeat.

Due to missing the games against Argentina on the two previous weekends, he will be unable to coach Steve Borthwick for England’s game against the United States on July 19.

The 36-person squad includes Bath’s Will Muir, Sale’s Tom Roebuck, and Cadan Murley from Harlequins.

George Furbank, a full-back for Northampton who suffered a concussion in the Saints’ Champions Cup defeat by Bordeaux-Begles, stays at home to continue his recovery, along with Freddie Steward and Joe Carpenter.

Harry Randall and Ben Curry both recovered from their injuries.

Maro Itoje became England’s skipper at the start of this year, and Jamie George will take the starting captaincy along with Sale fly-half George Ford.

Henry Slade can replace Charlie Atkinson in midfield, but only the Gloucester’s Charlie Atkinson is the other specialist fly-half.

Max Ojomoh and Guy Pepper, both of whom are uncapped, are also looking to make their first Test appearances for England. Atkinson is one of the squad’s ten uncapped players.

Borthwick remarked, “The three-test series is a huge challenge and a valuable opportunity for this squad’s continued development.”

This will be some of the younger players’ first time traveling with England abroad. Traveling together strengthens team bonds and provides a valuable opportunity for newcomers to emigrate.

We’re looking forward to seeing how our team continues to grow, and it’s an exciting test.

Over the past 12 months, Argentina, which is ranked fifth in the world, defeated South Africa, New Zealand, France, and Australia in Dublin on Friday night.

England squad on a tour of Argentina and the US

Forwards: Fin Baxter (Harlequins), Arthur Clark (Gloucester), Alex Coles (Northampton), Chandler Cunningham-South (Harlequins), Ben Curry (Sale), Theo Dan (Saracens), Trevor Davison (Northampton), Alex Dombrandt (Harlequins), Jamie George (Saracens), Joe Heyes (Leicester), Ted Hill (Bath), Emmanuel Isekwe (North

related subjects

  • Rugby Union of England
  • Rugby Union